This is just getting sad. I’m not even going to try and defend Health Canada against the idea that its involved in some kind of gay conspiracy. Or that they somehow collect really good data 99% of the time, but then some how suck at research when it comes to gays.

And I’d like to thank Jefe, HH, Rami, and the many others who made this thread possible. Unlike a religious debate, my opposition here attempted to remain rational and logical throughout the discussion. Aside from ad hominems and other unecessary insults they managed to make a pretty darn good debate.

I suppose what transcends the cause of homosexuality and whether it is a perfectly healthy thing is whether or not people in general will accept it. We can only speak as individuals and so I voiced my reasons as to why I am not willing to accept it. I obviously feel those reasons are valid based on my experience, others here don’t.

I don’t think that a personal belief is dogmatic if it is a subjective opinion. A lot could be learned from this thread, and not just things pertaining to being gay.

Most of us gay persons responding to your remarks rogerflat, were not, I think, holding out some sort of hope that you would eventually embrace either homosexuals or homosexuality after having read our comments and responses. But I think all of us, heterosexuals included, hoped that you would at least come to the realization that being gay is an authentic orientation (in other words, a natural condition), it is not a choice to ‘be gay.’ We can all agree that the lifestyle one chooses to live is a choice, but that there is an authentic self is a completely different question.

On that score, you did not respond to my questions about the nature of a persons innate sexual arousals. Perhaps this means that you were afraid to venture there because you realized that it would prove our point that homosexuality is indeed a natural condition for some and for that person to choose a “straight” lifestyle would be to deny their own authentic being. So in the absence of a reply from you rogerflat, I can logically assume that you do indeed understand without any reservations that homosexuality is entirely natural in the same sense that breathing and eating are natural. (We can all CHOOSE not to eat and not to breathe, but are those acceptable choices to make?)

you did not respond to my questions about the nature of a persons innate sexual arousals.

Yes but an innate sexual preference would be due to a genetic predisposition to that preference. Hence, this would be carried from one generation to the next and be inherited. Anyone who knows jack about evolution 101 knows that humans only survive by reproducing with the opposite sex. The long term survivors should be heterosexual breeders. A long lasting preference for the same sex would not be a trait that was prone to being passed on.

So, if that innate preference is true for SOME homosexuals (because of course that is not the case for all), then it must be a result of some anomaly just like autism and other genetic defects cause those individuals to be less likely to reproduce but yet the trait remains prevalent in the genepool due to recessiveness, etc.

Gays aren’t defective as people, they are defective as breeders. But this still implies that something is “not right” with them and that their behavior is not natural and perhaps unhealthy.

you did not respond to my questions about the nature of a persons innate sexual arousals.

Yes but an innate sexual preference would be due to a genetic predisposition to that preference. Hence, this would be carried from one generation to the next and be inherited. Anyone who knows jack about evolution 101 knows that humans only survive by reproducing with the opposite sex. The long term survivors should be heterosexual breeders. A long lasting preference for the same sex would not be a trait that was prone to being passed on.

So, if that innate preference is true for SOME homosexuals (because of course that is not the case for all), then it must be a result of some anomaly just like autism and other genetic defects cause those individuals to be less likely to reproduce but yet the trait remains prevalent in the genepool due to recessiveness, etc.

Gays aren’t defective as people, they are defective as breeders. But this still implies that something is “not right” with them and that their behavior is not natural and perhaps unhealthy.

I am sure that this has been mentioned before, and I am sure that it will not move you in the slightest. But:

There is no reason to suppose that homosexuals cannot leave offspring. Nothing prevents a homosexual from having heterosexual relationships and producing offspring.

By the way, how do you move from “Trait X is a product of natural selection” to “Anything that deviates from trait X is unnatural and harmful”?

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

I’d like to thank Rogerflat for (unwittingly?) demonstrating an almost textbook example of Compartmentalized Dogmatism to an Idea. He has provided us with clear examples of the processes by which a person can compartmentalize an idea about something and hold to that idea in spite of authoritative evidence that strongly suggests that idea is not correct.

He has provided us with clear examples of self-justification to a dogmatic idea in his meandering through a multi-pronged critique of his position, and managed to hold on to his originating idea in spite of repeated attempts to cajole him into reading evidence, repeated attempts to have him accept the authority of multi-national research organizations over his own anecdotal observations.

He has tried to provide supportive material to back his claim, and managed to hold onto his compartmentalized dogmatism as those sources were dismantled by his audience. (And despite his predictions of said dismantling, I rather think he knew they were not as authoritative as those presented in opposition to his stance.)

The overlaying topic of this thread, The Social Acceptability of Homosexuality, was in some ways secondary to this demonstration of dogmatism and compartmentalized thinking. From a clinical perspective, this thread functions as a fine example to hold up as to how dogmatism is not simply a religious phenomena, but that it does clearly overlap into socio-political thought as well.

Good summery of the thread. I think that from time to time we forget that harmful and cruel dogmatic thinking exists outside of religion to this day. Its also a good reminder that homophobia outside of religion is almost identical to homophobia inside religion.

Your response was rather convincing given certain assumptions about how the terms ‘natural’ ‘genetic’ and ‘innate’ play out in an evolutionary sense.

On the first term ‘natural’ - you are assuming that as far as evolutionary purposes are concerned ‘breeding’ is THE natural condition of every human being. Those who are not successful breeders should become extinct in the normal course of evolutionary life. As KFD has pointed out, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from breeding and we have plenty of evidence that they do, so in your book are homosexuals who have offspring being natural or just acting as if they are natural? There are a lot more than just the ability to breed that serve as purposeful evolutionary traits, especially in social animals like humans. For example I can think of things like being shamanic dream ciphers, inventing better technologies that can save and sustain lives, being peacemakers, turning bad ideas into better ones, helping your family genepool survive, etc..

On the genetic front, you are assuming that there is such a thing as a “gay gene” and if that was the case then perhaps your theory would make sense. But perhaps in the human genetic code there is only a neutral orientation preference (bisexuality) that gets formulated or expressed in the early stages of childhood through particular interactions within the family unit? All (well, most) of us are genetically coded to be physically either male or female, but what our sexual preference will be (given the heavy psychological and/or emotional aspect of that formation) is NOT genetically encoded, therefore everyone is potentially attracted to ALL human beings and natural sexual preferences are explicitly ordained long after the birth of the child? This is still a natural condition.

If the innate (thus natural) sexual orientation was actually given in the genetic code then surely this same-sex preference would have been “weeded out” through normal evolutionary process. But one would have to wonder, if breeding is the only signature of the natural condition, how did homosexuality appear in the first place through the millions of years of evolutionary persistence. If it was as “unnatural” as you claim, it should never have appeared in the first place, except by some strange genetic mutation. But even given that, why would this condition continue to appear in some regular percentage of the human population globally?

If your defense of “natural” by the tenets of evolution itself would be true, there would hardly be perhaps one in a million or one in a billion homosexual mutants on this planet at any given moment. It seems the facts themselves are ruling against you, so now you need to invent other fanciful notions (molestation or ugliness or bad-choices) as excuses to keep your theory alive. Your “scientific” methodology has no clothes.

What you were saying about a “neutral orientation” doesn’t make sense because we are not “gender neutral” at birth. Some species, the sea horse I believe are like that, but not humans. Since we only produce sexually then we are programmed to mate with the opposite sex and therefore be attracted to them. Whatever alternative theory that you are grasping for doesn’t fit into the evolutionary/biological scheme of things.

Also, the fact that there are not as few homosexuals as you would think is indicative that it is NOT some random mutation or misfire. That means that they are being made due to environmental factors. And now we are back to determining what these non genetic factors might be.

I do agree with the second paragraph but your reasons (all very negative ones stated earlier) for creating homosexual persons are completely off the mark. Please explain why being molested as a child would turn a boy into a gay man? If we are all naturally heterosexual (as you suggest), then surely being molested by another, larger male would turn a child anti-gay when he grew up. I do realize that the trauma a girl would experience in being molested by a man could turn her against being attracted to men when she becomes a woman, but why would it necessarily turn her into a lesbian?

The first paragraph shows me that you did not understand my “neutral orientation” hypothesis. What did you think I meant rogerflat? You suggest that I meant that babies are born un-gendered like seahorses? Are you competely daft? To clarify, I meant that there is no specific part of the genetic code informing our sexual orientation, instead we are all attracted to both sexes, but somehow through the nurturing process we are inclined to go one way or another (sometimes in spite of our particular sexual equipment we end up being aroused by the same sex).

Please explain why being molested as a child would turn a boy into a gay man? If we are all naturally heterosexual (as you suggest), then surely being molested by another, larger male would turn a child anti-gay when he grew up. I do realize that the trauma a girl would experience in being molested by a man could turn her against being attracted to men when she becomes a woman, but why would it necessarily turn her into a lesbian?

Why would having repeated gay sex with a man make you gay? Well, why would repeatedly using drugs make you a drug addict? It’s hard to say why or how sexual abuse makes someone turn gay. You’re falling into the Christian rationale somewhat. Kind of like asking why life would “randomly” evolve into the spectucular organisms we see on earth today. There are reasons for it, but they don’t necessarily make intuitive sense.

What did you think I meant rogerflat? You suggest that I meant that babies are born un-gendered like seahorses? Are you competely daft?

You obviously didn’t get it eventhough I explained it thoroughly. Babies are of course born gendered, but there is an attraction assigned to each gender which should be for the opposite sex (and is in ninety some percent of people).

What you are suggesting is that attraction towards a certain gender is acquired in all people during their formative years. That theory, like most of the opinions espoused on this thread, is completely unfounded.

There was a point there where it winded down nicely. Why didn’t it stop?

But now, we get to hear the same old shît - challenges in logic put to Roger, who simply counters them with retorts which reshape those questions in ways that enable him to respond from his biased, bigoted homophobic bag of tricks.

For Roger, it can always come back to “men should only like women,” as if the word “should” somehow lends his argument substance.

There was an missed opportunity to stop. But I suppose it’s not my place to chide posters who feel it’s worthwhile to attempt convincing this bigot that he’s bigoted. Have at it.

“The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray.”
— Robert G. Ingersoll